Shadow_1stVFW

Tell you what, you build me a mission in which you can rearm or refuel a harrier which landed on a road.

This. That's one thing DCS doesn't do well, simulate an environment with missing logistics. I had a pretty long conversation with a few guys about the Hornet vs Viper that follows along the same train of thought as the above post. Some are saying they don't understand the Viper vs Hornet, they do they same thing. Which I'd more or less agree with in principle. But the thing about the Hornet is it can do the same things the Viper can do in places the Viper can't. And that, in my opinion is it's main advantage, the carrier and her strike group. Allowing that hornet to operate from just about anywhere in the world within a few hours really. But that will never really be a benefit in DCS as the maps will always have a airfield Vipers can operate out of within a reasonable distance. Kind of the same thing for the Harrier II+ but a little more extreme. Take away the carriers and airfields and you are left with roads to operate off of, and even then you have to move frequently. That's the benefit of airframes like the harrier and viggen. But we just don't really see that in DCS. Now, if there was an option to place a FARP where you don't need to be in contact with it to rearm and refuel, well those aircraft have a lot more power. Just imagine if in the huey or Mi-8 you could load a unit that allowed the Harrier or Viggen to land on a road, get within say 100 yards and rearm and refuel, then get back into the air. Then that helo takes off, heads to another spot and they can keep doing that. Now the harrier doesn't needs it's fuel tanks and can just keep hitting targets and coming back and going out again. That's the idea behind the Harrier. But we don't have that, so it's a jet with shorter legs, less hardpoints, and less maneuverability. You can build missions for it to exploit the usefulness, but it's a biut hard not being able to get fuel or weapons and being stuck to the ship or airfields.

Changing the laser code on the laser mav page does seem to present an issue. I don't think it's accepting values in the UFC when the CODE OSB is pushed on the LMAV page. I usually always enter my code in the DMT or LST screen. That has worked for me.

The SA page will not update to the new position Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Personally I'd rather they just disappear. It's a pain to deal with taxiing aircraft on the Stennis. If you've got statics on the ship you either need to set the AI to invulerable, or the crash and make a mess, or just 'know' where they will taxi, which with no documentation on where the AI taxi and park, is a stupidly long process of trail and error. Don't get me wrong, I like the taxiing AI. Some of the time. But I'd rather my ships look a little more busy than a clean deck until planes come to land. So I get into this situation where using AI kills the start up process because the ship is empty, or I use statics and can't really use AI. I kind of rather liked the approach Jane's F-18 used whereby all flight deck movements where scripted. But we don't have that here. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Shook voices a lot. She's in train stations and airports Of note though, in this video they say you shouldn't be hearing it much, I think ours is a little jumpy and comes on too much. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

So, when you changed an AI aircraft to another and back all your static objects centered on the boat? The Static Objects will do that if the 'object fixation' box is not checked in their menu. Did you change the stennis to something else at any point?

Oh I wish, Can there be a toggle and on/off control for the barking brake please? The step by step controls are nice, but I've got a 2 position switch I use for the parking break on every other aircraft I'd fly, and it'd be nice to have the on/off to use for that. As an aside, wing fold would be nice too, but I don't use this as often.

Somebody will have to alert the ED team I've put the Track and more info down here. Not sure how many times they look at bug reports they've tagged already.

Post with tracks and video The hornet is rolling into the wind with no roll inputs. Tested in mission created before and after update. Video and Tracks below. Wind is coming from east, I start, let it roll, then turn into the wind with a slight offset, you can see it rolls in the opposite direction but not as bad. Then I turn so I'm facing south and it rolls harder. Video: Tracks: Clean Mission, No wind Clean Mission with wind Wind Settings:

I'll get a track up in 5

Well, you and Cobra have differing opinions on this.

I'd see this every now and again doing low level stuff. I just came out of HTS mode and that seemed to have fixed it for me. I just assumed I had slewed the TPOD at some point when the target was behind terrain and it locked what it could see. I never looked at it like a bug though. So there may be more to it.

Spent the better part of the day looking into this because I broke a mission I've been working on. When sending user marks from the Mission Editor, If you have more than 5 lines in the comment box, the sim will crash In game you can only type 5 lines. So I guess if you put more in there it freaks out.

In a thread of people complaining that ED has control of the HB release now, people also say RB is wrong for releasing something............. Isn't that why people are mad? because ED controls the releases? What's RB got to do with this?

Sounds like it is, that's a shame. It's a big deal to me. I mean, there is this... But what does he know?

Our target is prior to the 21st. Yes, NLT date is immutable. . I just want to know about my afterburner detent. But I still wait on that.

From my testing the DMT aligns with the Wind Corrected VV (Ghost VV) You can see this by depressing TDC while in NAV mode with a significant cross wind. In AG mode the VV is wind corrected so you won't see a ghost and you won't have an issue. But in VTOL and NAV modes the VV's are not wind corrected and you can see the DMT clearly locks based on the Ghost VV in NAV mode. (This is one of the reasons I so badly want the VV fixed, that and in VTOL mode in a turn it's pretty useless.)

Any comment on this? It's a big ticket item for me.

Right?! I mean, for me this isn't really an issue. I think it's fun finding the information. But folk are going to carry whatever the game lets them carry. (Think guys taking like 14 or whatever MK-82s on the soon to be Tomcat or 14 GBU-12s on the Harrier.) I sincerely doubt the in game loadouts will change. I personally go with loadouts that make sense in terms of drag, performance and mission. So I'm not carrying more than 4 GBUs (MAYBE 6 in a pinch, but not likely). Like I said, I think it's fun finding stuff out, but sometimes I think people get WAY to into finding out exactly how things are supposed to work. In my head, this is a sim, at the end of the day, I want this experience to be believable or realistic. I guess it's a hard thing to explain, but I'd rather be able to believe I'm doing things realistically than actually do it realistically in some cases. I don't know, that sounds more dumb when I read it than in my head, I'm going to quit ranting, I'm way off topic.

Yup, so we are clear as mud!

I spoke with Sunstag recently, he's said he put in some work (there was a video) but he couldn't do much more. Not until changes are made in how the carriers handle the Harriers. I get that people get annoyed, but I mean, ED has a lot to do, and aren't exactly known to getting around to 'smaller' (ie non game breaking) bugs particularly quickly. So I wouldn't hold your breath unfortunately. EDIT: To point out this issue even further, Heatblur who, as far as we can all tell, has been very adimate on developing their own technology outside of the base sim, said there carrier will act just like the Stennis insofar as parking and what not. Which should be very telling.

I hear where you are coming from, but the same goes for the catapult or the runway. But it should be an option. I do A LOT of mission making and by extension testing, either the time it takes me or an AI to taxi adds up after testing soemthing 10s of times. But I don't use runway starts for the final product. But yeah, basically I get it. I disagree though. It's not on them. The jet is classified as a VTOL in the Sim, it's complicated, but it's not the same as other jets. It has different restrictions within the Sim than other jets. That needs to be addressed by ED. To see what I mean, try spawning more than one harrier in the Stennis, it doesn't work. That stuff needs to be fixed before anything else can happen. In the mean time we are kind of stuck. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Anyone with any skills with modding can do something like this?

This isn't a bug, it's not going to work. At present you can't use both types of refueling on the tanker Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk